German skeptic blog Science Skeptical reacts to the early release of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report – written by Dr. Peter Heller.

Dr. Peter Heller sees the IPCC in a difficult position as the body confirms global temperature stagnation. Photo source: www.freiewelt.net/

Heller first welcomes the transparency allowed through the early, though unauthorized, release of the report, writing that “transparency in the past had been sorely missed”. Heller then describes the purpose of the report and summarizes that the authors more or less have pretty much stuck to their opinion that man is changing the energy budget of the atmosphere though the emission of greenhouse gases, and adds:

That’s not surprising, as spreading this claim and searching for scientific evidence of this have been the purpose of the IPCC since it was founded 20 years ago.

First of all, such a temperature increase is not remarkable at all. The question is what will the consequence be. In its reports, the IPCC attempts to answer this. Here the results of model computations are used.

The problem, Heller reminds us, is that many physical and socio-economical assumptions here have to be made, and that is far from being an exact science. Heller then summarizes that there are little differences between the 4th and 5th assessment reports:

We expect fewer cold and more warm days and nights in most regions of the world.

Correspondingly, we expect more heat waves and less cold waves in most regions of the world.

Also we expect an increase in heavy rainfalls in more regions, and a reduction in fewer.

Regarding the strength of tropical storms, in AR5 they are less certain if they will increase.

While in AR4 it was assumed that more regions would be impacted by profound droughts, the scientists in AR 5 are markedly more unsure and careful about this.

Despite the similarities, Heller points out that the current version of the AR 5 has one fundamental admission: temperature has stagnated while CO2 has climbed. THE MODELS ARE IN TROUBLE!

Heller summarizes:

Five years have passed since the last assessment report, and the basis (particularly the scenarios and projections) of AR 4 are now older. Now is a good time to go back and check to see just how good the projections of the past match up to the developments of the present. AR 5 here has nicely added some details.

When one compares the real development of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere with the assumptions of the four previous IPCC reports (Figure 2, Page 41 in Chapter 1). The match is good. But it would have been bad if there had been larger deviations, as this would have meant gross false estimates already with the fundamental socio-economic start scenarios.

Next let’s take a look at the temperature development compared to the projections (Figure 3, Page 39 in Chapter 1).

Here no further comment is necessary. The stagnation of the last 15 years is clearly visible, and thus officially confirmed by IPCC, though only indirectly. The model calculations had never showed a stagnation, which us skeptics have long been showing. The trust in the abilities of the models to project the temperature development of the future thus have been shaken to the core.

Figure 3: Temperature development in reality and in the models. Source: IPCC AR 5.

Or at least it should be. We have to wait and see how politicians and media will go about handling this message. Foremost it will be interesting to see the changes and supplements in the coming report. While in the past it had been possible to remove or edit unwanted content (like the above diagram, for example) before final publication, this is no longer a simple matter. Alec Rawls has put the IPCC under pressure. Also the upcoming steps until the planned publication in September 2013 will have to be done transparently and publicly.

After all, we know that climate alarmism is a matter of faith. And one only believes what one trusts.

==================================================
And as is the case with temperature development, us skeptics also suspect a similar development is also occurring with sea level rise, polar ice melt, storms – to name a few. Real temperatures actually match up precisely with Vahrenholt and Lüning’s projection:

Source: Die kalte Sonne.

————————————————————Peter Heller is a regular contributor to Science Skeptical and a consultant on energy and climate.

These self-admissions by the IPCC should be understood, by honest people, as an admission of guilt, and an admission that their science is a failure. They should not be granted any authority or respect from this point; they have indicted themselves at this late date, only in order to escape the noose and retain their authority, and this cannot be allowed, if science itself (not to mention the political process, in every nation) is to be rehabilitated.

Also, the last figure above is not original to Vahrenholt and Lüning, and certainly not with their recent book. Look up Akasofu on the net, he used (and may well have originated) the image several years ago, and it is well known to anyone who has looked into the multidecadal ocean oscillations — on top of recovery from the Little Ice Age — theory of global warming. That’s one of the really fundamental problems with the AGW fraud: It has made it necessary for scientists like me, unconnected with the academic world, to write internet articles about it “on the fly”, and thus short-circuit the normal procedure for publishing in science (the peer review process, which allowed and has sustained the incompetence and fraud); in doing so, however, those of us who have made pertinent or even definitive and seminal discoveries in climate science have no protection of our priority of discovery but the openness of our internet writing and the general honesty of our audience. The enemy — academics who champion the global warming “consensus” theories — of course act as if only peer-reviewed articles can be taken into account, but readers here should know that is the way a fraudulent institutional agenda is protected: by claiming theirs is the only way the “debate” can be conducted and judged. The bottom line is, science has been fundamentally perverted, and it cannot be investigated and corrected from within, by those who have continued to abuse and corrupt it. Yet prior discoveries must be respected, because the truth, and thus science, demands it.

These two statements in the IPCC-DRAFT (2012), AR5, Supplement for Policymaker, found my interest:
_p.4/Line33__Largest warming is found near the sea surface (>0.1°C per decade in the upper 75 m),
_p.4/Line40__Warming of the ocean accounts for more than 90% of the extra energy stored by the Earth between 1971 and 2010.

Indeed it is the ocean that has the biggest influence in the weather system, as it feeds the atmosphere with heat and water, day and night, and throughout all seasons. Heat from the sun warms the most upper sea surface layer, but wind and waves push the heat downward. The same is done by merchant, navy and fishing vessels. Discussed here:http://www.ocean-climate-law.com/Draft/home.html
The deeper warm surface water is pushed down to lower levels, the more it will increase the heat storage in the sea.

200 years ago one person seems to have understood more from the global weather and climate system as many ten thousand scientists today:

This revelation is hugely important, regardless of initial media/political reaction. The IPCC has had tremendous influence because it was able to present previous assessments as virtually tablets ‘come down from the mountain’ a la Moses, accompanied by a huge global media splash which reinforced them as fact. This has effectively ended that, hopefully for good.

With 24 years of post-IPCC observation, should we not be collapsing the scenarios of temperature and CO2 rise? And sea-level rise.

With the premature release of AR5, the skeptical side has a great opportunity to publicize the discord between models and observations, and push for the models that most favourably compare to observation to be used. Of course, this is the no-impact by CO2, Scenario C as considered by Hansen. Which destroys CAGW.

I bet that the IPCC will hurry up the AR5 release to February. I doubt they can move faster than that. They will do this to quell dispute or “confusion” as a result of skeptical “misuse” of the draft edition. So we actually have only a small bit of time at our disposal.

Somehow we need to get into the MSM, like a full-page of the NY Times, in which the model disconnect is established, the current pattern is projected, and the unavoidable negation of CAGW theory is demonstrated. Using only AR5 plots.

If CO2 rises are not related to global climate change, would you kindly explain Hurricane Sandy — the worst hurricane the north east coast has ever endured… among other recent extreme weather events that are more recently rampaging the globe. Why might there be so many of these freakish weather patterns coincident with increased levels of atmospheric CO2…. not to mention more people than ever guzzling power and energy while emitting gases that weren’t there before? Thanks.

What to think of the Saint Elisabeth Flood. Perhaps the worst storm the Netherlands ever endured. About two thousand people got drowned. I have no explanation but this freakish weather event took place on 19 November 1421.

Global Warming Realist, the warmist theory states that polar regions must warm more than warmer regions, reducing the temperature gradient. How is this supposed to drive more energetic storms than in the past?

Warmist theory denies that storms work to move excess energy up into the atmosphere to be radiated into space – otherwise they would have to revise their prediction of runaway water vapor feedback.

Why does warmist science not concede that the atmosphere is a heat engine that cools the planet? (Well, they actually can’t simulate storms. So it’s better to just make some ominous declarations about them, right?)

Worst? RU mad? Examine the 1930s and 50s. Heavier, bigger, wetter. Bad preparation, especially by Boneheadberg, is responsible for most costs. Sandy, even the climatologists acknowledge, had nothing to do with Sandy.

The IPCC is in chaos because their “concept” of the physics of planetary atmospheres is seriously flawed. For example, they cannot possibly use their “School of Thought” to explain Venus surface temperatures, where the surface receives less than 10% of the insolation reaching Earth’s surface.

The small amount of solar energy absorbed by the Venus surface would very easily exit the surface the next night by conduction (diffusion) and radiation. Then, when this small amount of energy is back in the atmosphere there is plenty of carbon dioxide to radiate it away. There is absolutely no possible way by which such energy would be trapped in the surface and somehow add hundreds of degrees. The problem is, if you follow the “First School of Thought” (the IPCC bluff) then you are at a complete loss to explain Venus temperatures, because, if you think like the IPCC it is because you have been subjected to Ignorant Promulgation of Chaotic Consensus.” You need a paradigm shift to the “Second School of Thinking” in my paper.

[…] 10,166 Dr. Peter Heller sees the IPCC in a difficult position as the body confirms global temperature stagnation. "Five years have passed since the last assessment report, and the basis (particularly the scenarios and projections) of AR 4 are now older. Now is a good time to go back and check to see just how good the projections of the past match up to the developments of the present. AR 5 here has nicely added some details." […]

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy